Schrag Deborah, Earle Craig, Xu Feng, Panageas Katherine S, Yabroff K Robin, Bristow Robert E, Trimble Edward L, Warren Joan L
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10021, USA.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Feb 1;98(3):163-71. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djj018.
Strong associations between provider (i.e., hospital or surgeon) procedure volumes and patient outcomes have been demonstrated for many types of cancer operation. We performed a population-based cohort study to examine these associations for ovarian cancer resections.
We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database to identify 2952 patients aged 65 years or older who had surgery for a primary ovarian cancer diagnosed from 1992 through 1999. Hospital- and surgeon-specific procedure volumes were ascertained based on the number of claims submitted during the 8-year study period. Primary outcome measures were mortality at 60 days and 2 years after surgery, and overall survival. Length of hospital stay was also examined. Patient age at diagnosis, race, marital status, comorbid illness, cancer stage, and median income and population density in the area of residence were used to adjust for differences in case mix. All P values are two-sided.
Neither hospital- nor surgeon-specific procedure volume was statistically significantly associated with 60-day mortality following primary ovarian cancer resection. However, differences by hospital volume were seen with 2-year mortality; patients treated at the low-, intermediate-, and high-volume hospitals had 2-year mortality rates of 45.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 42.1% to 48.4%), 41.1% (95% CI = 38.1% to 44.3%), and 40.4% (95% CI = 37.4% to 43.4%), respectively. The inverse association between hospital procedure volume and 2-year mortality was statistically significant both before (P = .011) and after (P = .006) case-mix adjustment but not after adjustment for surgeon volume. Two-year mortality for patients treated by low-, intermediate-, and high-volume surgeons was 43.2% (95% CI = 40.7% to 45.8%), 42.9% (95% CI = 39.5% to 46.4%), and 39.5% (95% CI = 36.0% to 43.2%), respectively; there was no association between 2-year mortality and surgeon procedure volume, with or without case-mix adjustment. After case-mix adjustment, neither hospital volume (P = .031) nor surgeon volume (P = .062) was strongly associated with overall survival.
Hospital- and surgeon-specific procedure volumes are not strong predictors of survival outcomes following surgery for ovarian cancer among women aged 65 years or older.
对于多种类型的癌症手术,已证实医疗服务提供者(即医院或外科医生)的手术量与患者预后之间存在密切关联。我们开展了一项基于人群的队列研究,以探讨卵巢癌切除术的这些关联。
我们使用监测、流行病学和最终结果(SEER)与医疗保险的链接数据库,确定了2952例年龄在65岁及以上、于1992年至1999年期间接受原发性卵巢癌手术的患者。根据8年研究期间提交的索赔数量确定医院和外科医生的特定手术量。主要结局指标为术后60天和2年的死亡率以及总生存期。还对住院时间进行了检查。采用诊断时患者年龄、种族、婚姻状况、合并疾病、癌症分期以及居住地区的收入中位数和人口密度来调整病例组合的差异。所有P值均为双侧。
原发性卵巢癌切除术后,无论是医院特定手术量还是外科医生特定手术量,均与60天死亡率无统计学显著关联。然而,在2年死亡率方面观察到了医院手术量的差异;在低手术量、中等手术量和高手术量医院接受治疗的患者,其2年死亡率分别为45.2%(95%置信区间[CI]=42.1%至48.4%)、41.1%(95%CI=38.1%至44.3%)和40.4%(95%CI=37.4%至43.4%)。医院手术量与2年死亡率之间的负相关在病例组合调整前(P = 0.011)和调整后(P = 0.006)均具有统计学显著性,但在调整外科医生手术量后则无显著性。低手术量、中等手术量和高手术量外科医生治疗的患者2年死亡率分别为43.2%(95%CI=40.7%至45.8%)、42.9%(95%CI=39.5%至46.4%)和39.5%(95%CI=36.0%至43.2%);无论是否进行病例组合调整,2年死亡率与外科医生手术量之间均无关联。病例组合调整后,医院手术量(P = 0.031)和外科医生手术量(P = 0.062)与总生存期均无强烈关联。
对于65岁及以上女性,医院和外科医生的特定手术量并非卵巢癌手术后生存结局的有力预测指标。